Why I Switched to Micro 4/3

There several reactions when I tell people I went from a pro-grade full frame Canon DSLR rig to Micro 4/3. First, many people are astonished that I’d give up such good gear for that ‘little tiny sensor.’ Or “what happened to your pro gear?” More recently, though, as the market has shifted towards mirrorless, the discussion centers a lot on whether Micro 4/3 has finally caught up to be as good as most DSLRs in image quality, and the biggest one: How much smaller is it, really?

While the image quality debate is still open, I find that the Olympus E-M5 has closed the gap to where it is on par with the majority of APS-C DSLRs. While not quite as good as a top-shelf full frame kit, it’s certainly good enough for my shooting. Now, there are a whole range of things one has to consider, from continuous autofocus to dynamic range to avalability of lenses to shallow depth of field and so on. Those are debates for another time, and right now I really don’t want to get into a debate on whether any particular person should switch or not switch or similar discussions. Right now I want to tell you why I switched, and it’s the same reason that many photographers have done the same, or have added a mirrorless camera to their arsenal as a second system. It’s the prime reason why the mirrorless segment was created: SIZE.

Due to the lack of a mirror, the flange distance on a Micro 4/3 camera is much shorter than on a DSLR. This not only allows the camera body to become much slimmer, but it allows the lenses, especially wide angle to normal lenses, to become much smaller. This is the same reason why Leica M mount lenses can be so small even though they cover a 35mm image circle. Since Micro 4/3 is a smaller sensor (half the diagonal of a full frame sensor), it also can use shorter focal lengths for telephoto lenses to have the same field of view. So instead of carrying a 300mm lens, one only needs to carry a 150mm lens for the same field of view. This leads to further shrinking of the kit. The question many people ask is: how small is that?

Take a look at the image above. This is my ‘small’ kit for Micro 4/3, and it’s not even as small as it could go. (I could use my Panasonic GX1, which is even smaller than my E-M5). It includes a weathersealed camera body, and three lenses covering super wide to short telephoto, and all have fast apertures. Here you have my Olympus E-M5 with Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8. These are equivalent to a 24mm, 50mm and 90mm lens on full frame in field of view. The bag is a little bag that can fit the whole kit: two lenses on the left and the camera body with lens mounted on the right, and it can be attached to your belt. How much does the whole thing weigh? See below:

The whole kit including bag: 1.171 kg

That’s 1.171 kg for three lenses and a camera body, including the bag to carry them (a Lowepro Rezo 110AW). To put this in perspective, a Canon 7D body weighs in at 945g by itself (with battery). Add a single small lens like the Canon 50mm f/1.4, and you’re already coming in heavier than this three lens kit with bag. Add in similar lenses to get a similar FOV with similar speed? (and yes, I understand there’s a depth of field difference), and you’d need a 7D with 14mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. Add a comparable bag that can fit all of these things (such as the Lowepro Nova 160 AW), and you are now clocking in at a total weight of 2.556 kg and a MUCH larger size too. That and the 28/1.8 and 50/1.8 are no match optically for the 25/1.4 and 45/1.8. Because you need an ultra-wide on APS-C to get the 24mm equivalent field of view, it’s actually lighter to go with a full frame kit. So let’s look at a 5D Mark III, 24mm f/2.8 IS, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. This weighs in at 2.442kg…still well over double the weight of this tiny kit.

So what about a more complete kit?

A more fully featured kit – similar to what I’d use for hikes in the woods.

The above I carry often, but when I’m out for a photography expedition, I generally bring a little larger and a little more gear. While I tailor what I bring based on what I am shooting for the day, this next kit is what I generally bring for some landscape shooting or hiking. It’s my Olympus E-M5, Panasonic 7-14mm f/4, Leica 25mm f/1.4, Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro and Panasonic 45-175mm f/4-5.6. This gives me a huge range of focal lengths, equivalent to 14-350mm on full frame. I also have some extra stuff, like a polarizer, the clip on flash for the OM-D, my X-Rite color checker passport, lenspen, lens hoods, and I even generally have my accessory finder for my GX1 in this bag (a Think Tank Retrospective 5) at all times, whether I have my GX1 with me or not. It’s a pretty full featured kit with a wide capability.

So I put all this back in the bag and put it on the scale, and it tips the scale at a weight of 2.712 kg. Not ultra-light weight, but at just under 6 lbs, it sure ain’t bad, and these are not exactly the lightest Micro 4/3 lenses around.

This all weighs in at 2.712 kg

So what does a comparable DSLR kit consist of? Let’s take that 7D again. I’m using the 7D because it has weather sealing, a better viewfinder, faster burst FPS and similar image quality to the OM-D E-M5…you can of course lose a little bulk by going to a smaller body like a Digital Rebel, but it won’t really compare with the E-M5 either. (Remember also I could also lop 150g off the weight further by using my GX1). Anyway, a similar capability for the 7D would include the Sigma 8-16mm ultra-wide, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, the Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro and the Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6. To be very similar, let’s use the Think Tank Retrospective 10 shoulder bag, which is extremely similar to the 5, but large enough to hold an SLR kit (though not owning these, I can’t say for sure that it’ll fit everything.) I didn’t individually weigh the polarizer, lenspen, and color checker, so let’s just give that as a free nod to the DSLR kit. Anyway, the full 7D DSLR kit? 4.055 kg. That’s a full 3 lbs heavier – over 50%. Go to a full-frame kit with the 17-40 f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 Macro and Tamron 70-300mm VC and you’re now looking at 4.461kg. Any way you slice it, it’s a pretty significant savings.

So, this is great and all, but the bottom line is this: is the significant size and weight savings worth the other tradeoffs? For me, yes. For you? Well, only you can answer that question.

tom

Add a tripod to the kit as well and you have a even larger difference. I love to go hiking with several m43 lenses a light tripod, filter etc. And also carry water, coffe, some food, extra clothing etc … all in a Lovepro Flipside 400 AW …

Jim

I see that you are using the Panasonic 45-175mm f/4-5.6 lens with your Olympus EM-5 camera. I read somewhere that the optical image stabilization on that lens cannot be turned off. Is this true? Do you have to turn off the image stabilization on the camera when using this lens? I have just received my EM-5 and am looking for a longer lens. I had been eyeing the 45-175, but I would hate to give up the EM-5’s 5-axis stabilization system.

Zack Jones

I agree with you the weight difference between my Canon gear and Olympus gear is one big plus in favor of the Olympus gear. Since I’m no longer concentrating on sports and have shifted my focus to landscapes and waterfalls specifically the lighter gear is a huge plus. I’m envious of your lens selection. I have the 45 and will eventually get the 12. Have you given any consideration to the upcoming 75mm prime?

John Holmes

I agreed with you 100% until I started having problems with accidentally hitting buttons on the back of my G3. It seemed that every time I brought the camera up to my eye it was in the menu or somewhere else I didn’t want to be. I also actually changed some settings from time to time accidentally. I tried different ways of holding the camera but it didn’t work. I have arthritis in my hands and have trouble using my thumbs. At the moment I’m going back to the Pentax K-5 and will restrict my lens choices if necessary due to weight; but, I’m hoping that the better ergonomics overcome the additional weight.

Jesse

Side note: Would you mind doing a mini-review on your Think Tank Retrospective 5? I’ve been wondering how it works for an OM-D kit and would like to see some more photos and thoughts with various equipment loads. Bonus points if you can work an iPad into it 😉

Jesse from Dayton

ordinaryimages

What a well thought out and executed product…built like a tank! I carry [2] E-M5’s mounted with 12/2, 45/1:8 respectively and the 12-50 kit lens [with easy room for two or more lenses] along with the usual sundry items. Won’t fit a current iPad, but will take an 8×6 soft cover Aperture “book” for analog looky-loo’s ; ] Adding one of the long zooms and selling my beautiful but heavy D700/D7k kit.

Rainer

Hi
I also sold my D7000 and lenses and bought the OMD with 12-50 kit lens. plus the zuiko 45mm and 45-200.
Thought of the Panasonic 12-35 mm 2.8 to complete the set, as the body and the 12-35 would make a great pair due to weather sealing.
What do you think? Any experience on this lens?
Thanks

It’s a very good lens, though it has a few flaws. Overall, high image quality and relatively compact for the wide aperture. I’m not a huge standard lens guy, especially when the long end is this short (I much prefer a 45-50mm long end on m4/3, similar to 85mm on full frame), as I always seem to want to switch often between the standard zoom and a telephoto. So, typically I use primes in that range, but I’m in the minority on that. It’s definitely the best standard range zoom for m4/3 at the moment.

The 45-200 I’m not a big fan of, as it’s rather large, and the 45-175 is much smaller and a little better optically (and internally zooming), though I have the 35-100/2.8 which is simply stellar. Enjoy m4/3…it’s a great little system.